Welp, I guess we can lay to rest the New, Improved, Inclusive Vermont Republican Party: born November 8, 2013, died February 1, 2014. Ah, VTGOP, we hardly knew ye.

The death blow was struck by the Republican State Committee which, on Saturday, approved a resolution formally opposing single-payer health care and urging “legislative and statewide candidates to publicly oppose single-payer/government run health care.”

This development, reported only (so far) by Neal Goswami of the Mitchell Family Organ (paywall alert), is difficult to interpret as anything other than a slap at Lt. Gov. Phil Scott, who has been publicly skeptical but not opposed to single-payer. But don’t take my word for it; just ask Phil, who did not attend Saturday’s meeting.

“I am surprised that a resolution such as that would be put forth without any notice to people like myself. I look forward to getting to the bottom of it to find out how and why. I think that’s disappointing,” he said.

But don’t take Phil’s word for it; just ask Darcie “Hack” Johnston, anti-health care reform dead-ender and serial Consultant To The Losers. If her grubby fingerprints aren’t all over this thing, she seems awfully damn proud of it. And unafraid to point out the obvious implications.

There could be repercussion for Scott and the party should he not take a stronger position against single-payer health care, according to Johnston.

“I don’t know what the consequences may or may not be. I would expect his fundraising would be more difficult. He could have a primary challenge. He won’t be helpful to other candidates on the stump,” she said.

Nice little Lieutenant Governorship ya got there, Philly. Shame if something were to happen to it.  

The Hack, having somehow lived through the utter debacle of the 2012 election without seeing any need to re-examine her political assumptions, continues to believe that Governor Shumlin and the vast Democratic majority are somehow out of touch with true public sentiment. The anti-single-payer resolution, she claims, puts the VTGOP on the comeback trail.

“I think it’s the ticket to raising money. I think it’s the ticket to recruiting candidates to run,” she said.

Durr hurr hurr. “Raising money” like Randy Brock, who had to loan his own campaign $300,000 just to get his war chest up to HALF the size of Gov. Shumlin’s? “Recruiting candidates” like Wendy Wilton, who lost badly in spite of massive spending on her behalf?

Okay, it’s no surprise that there are plenty of dead-enders in the VTGOP who are happy to take an inflammatory hard-core position — and put their unforgivably moderate Lt. Gov. in a really uncomfortable place. But what about Scott’s slate of party leaders? What about party chair David Sunderland, who won with Scott’s backing over the opposition of the dead-enders?

Sunderland was there on Saturday. He must have known that this was on the agenda, and he ought to have known that Scott was clueless about the knife poised between his shoulder blades. I have to imagine that if he has any control of his own organization, he could have wangled a postponement.

Why didn’t Sunderland have Phil Scott’s back?

The best he could offer was a lame non-explanation:

State GOP Chairman David Sunderland said the resolution is aimed at the frustration behind the “cloud of mystery” regarding Shumlin’s plan. It is not directed at Scott, he said.

Cough, choke, snort. Yeah, it was not directed at the only prominent Republican who’s held fire on single payer, the most prominent Republican advocating for a more inclusive party ideology, the most prominent Republican telling them that they’re dangerously out of touch, and the only Republican with proven statewide electoral appeal. I can’t even imagine how someone could reach such an obviously errant conclusion.

Sure thing, Dave. But I imagine your ensuing conversation with Scott must have been an uncomfortable one.  

Big story in the Sunday Burlington Free Press (which, once again, was not delivered to my house in spite of the fact that I have a digital-plus-Sunday-paper subscription*) with the tortuous title:

*I’ve stopped trying to get customer service through Gannett’s somewhere-out-there corporate call center.

When I saw that on the Freeploid’s website, honestly, my first thought was, “Gee, I know Archer Mayor’s last novel was set during Tropical Storm Irene, but that can’t be the subject of this article — that book came out several months ago!”

But, once again, I failed to adequately underestimate my Freeploid. It was, indeed, about Archer Mayor’s “latest” novel, officially in bookstores last October 1.

Not that I begrudge Mr. Mayor any publicity he can possibly wangle; he deserves every bit of it. But really now.  

Archer Mayor publishes precisely one book a year. It comes out on October 1 every year. He does an extensive book tour in the fall of every year. Vermont media are full of “new Archer Mayor mystery” stories in the fall of every year.

And now, on February 2, almost at the midway point to Mayor’s next book, the Freeploid gets around to it?

What’s even more embarrassing, the author of this non-story was Terri Hallenbeck, one-half of the Freeploid’s State House bureau.

During a legislative session, when there are stories begging to be told.

Truly, this is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. And it’s not near the top of the Freeploid’s sins against journalism and its readers. But c’mon, guys: Try to keep up.  

A few days ago, Bruce Lisman’s entirely self-funded “grassroots organization” Campaign for Vermont announced an expanded board of directors. Big snore, right? Well, no; in fact, CFV’s press release included the laugh line of the week.

And it came from a guy not previously noted for a sense of humor: Tom Pelham, CFV majordomo and tireless advocate for the discredited ideas of the Jim Douglas Administration. (Official Health Warning: Do not drink or eat while reading the following paragraph. It may induce choking.)

“Campaign for Vermont is a grassroots organization of outsiders – a coalition of independent Vermonters who want to have a voice for both fiscal responsibility and compassion for those who need a helping hand,” said Tom Pelham, also a co-founder of Campaign for Vermont.

Yes, he actually said “grassroots organization of outsiders.”

In reference to the hideously establishmentarian Campaign for Vermont.

All righty then. Let’s take a closer look at the street cred of this public policy biker gang, shall we? With appropriate nicknames provided by Yours Truly, of course.

Let’s start with Tom “Roughhouse” Pelham himself. In state government pretty much continuously from the Snelling Administration onward, including a lengthy stint as Jim Douglas’ Deputy Secretary of Administration. He’s been an outsider since Peter Shumlin became Governor, but not by choice; if Brian Dubie hadn’t screwed the pooch, Tom Pelham would still be a happy insider.

Now we circle back to the head honcho himself, Bruce “Moneybags” Lisman, lifelong Wall Streeter and former top executive at the late unlamented Bear Stearns. Retired with his fortune to the rough-and-ready outlaw town of Shelburne, from where he has spent over a million dollars building his “grassroots” “outsider” organization.

Hey, this is fun! Let’s continue exploring this colorful cohort of rebels.  

Bill “The Shiv” Sayre, longtime head of the Associated Industries of Vermont, the lobbying group representing our state’s biggest businesses.

Rich “R-Money” Tarrant, wealthy founder of IDX and spectacularly failed candidate for U.S. Senate.

Art “Numbers” Woolf, tenured professor at UVM and Vermont’s Loudest Economist(™).

Jason “Bigmouth” Gibbs, former Douglas Administration lackey turned unsuccessful PR consultant.

Ernie “Bulldozer” Pomerleau, high-powered realtor and developer.

Angelo “The Hammer” Pizzagalli, construction magnate whose family have been major Republican donors for decades. (Two other Pizzagallis are listed among CFV’s “members.”)

George “The Torch” Clain, longtime head of IBEW Local #300, shameless Vermont Yankee whore, now in a comfy gig as “lobbyist for the Vermont Yankee Development Trust, representing the mutual interests of IBEW Local #300 and Entergy.” Yeah, I guess it pays to be a whore.

Mary “Molotov” Evslin, co-founder of NG Advantage, a company that trucks compressed natural gas to businesses; her partner is, of course, Tom Evslin, former Douglas Administration technology czar responsible for some of Vermont’s notoriously disastrous IT contracts.

John “Digger” Powell, real estate developer and Chairman of the Board at Fletcher Allen Hospital.

Steve “Wrecking Ball” Wilk, owner of Wilk Paving, Inc. (Gee, there sure are a lot of construction/real estate types in this gang.)

Louise “Spike” McCarren, former chair of the Vermont Public Service Board and former Commissioner of Public Service, former executive at Verizon, etc., etc.

Edward “Capo” Zuccarro, former state representative and senior partner in a St. Johnsbury law firm, and former chair of the UVM Board of Trustees.

Mary Alice “The Blade” McKenzie, former president of McKenzie of Vermont, famed meat processor; also former General Counsel for Vermont State Colleges. She is now head of the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Burlington; her arms must be getting awfully tired from carrying the “compassion” load for CFV.

I could go on, and on, and on. But that’s enough to prove my point, and prove the knee-slapping irony of Tom Pelham’s “outsider” claim. Campaign for Vermont is, if it’s anything at all, an organization of insiders: the well-connected, the wealthy, the influential.

And it’s a “grassroots” organization 100% bought and paid for by the Outsider-In-Chief, “Moneybags” Lisman.  

This is a blog post by Allen Gilbert, executive director of the Vermont chapter of the ACLU and posted at his request. It can also be found here: 

http://www.acluvt.org/blog/2014/01/29/your-medical-records-are-already-out-there/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

With no fanfare and public notice, many Vermonters’ personal medical records have already been put into electronic databases controlled by the state and soon to be accessible to physicians and others working in hospitals and medical offices. While your consent is necessary for your records to be viewed legally, there is no electronic “lock” preventing unauthorized access — just the threat of what have, in the past, often been weak sanctions meekly administered.

The possibility of unauthorized access to Vermonters’ personal medical records will assume much larger dimensions if a proposal coming before the Green Mountain Care Board Feb. 13 is approved. The proposal would change the current system of a patient controlling which providers may access her records. Instead, there’d be a “global opt-in” system, in which a patient must agree to let all providers see her records, or no providers see anything (other than your own doctor and others in the same practice).

Further, if you give “global” consent, only those doctors and workers treating you are supposed to access your records. However, the state’s complex medical records system allows any provider to call up someone’s record and view it. If a doctor or lab technician views the record of someone they’re not treating, the unauthorized access is called a “breach.” That means someone who’s not supposed to see your medical records has taken a peak.

Only if an audit of the records were done, however, would the breach be found. If the breach were found and the violator identified, penalties could be imposed by the federal Office of Civil Rights, the state Attorney General’s Office, the person’s employer, the licensing agency overseeing the profession in which the violator works, or the agency credentialing the institution, if a hospital.

Supporters of e-medical records systems point to the possible penalties these agencies can impose as effective deterrents to breaches and as strong protection of your privacy.

In reality, the system of sanctions doesn’t always work the way it’s supposed to, raising the question of how secure patients’ records are in big electronic databases when access to the records is ubiquitous.

An example of weak sanctions: The federal Office of Civil Rights didn’t issue its first monetary penalty for a medical records privacy violation until 2012, 16 years after federal privacy protections were put in place through HIPAA, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. And now, the go-get-‘em enforcer (Leon Rodriguez) brought on the scene in 2011 to improve this track record has just been nominated for another position within the Obama administration.

There are Vermont stories to illustrate the problem of weak sanctions. Take, for example, the story of a Bennington woman who had her e-medical records viewed more than 100 times, over a period of 12 years, by someone with no authorization to do so (her sons’ records, additionally, were viewed 200 times).

The woman contacted the Office of Civil Rights and filed a HIPAA complaint; the OCR substantiated that the breaches had indeed occurred at Southwestern Vermont Medical Center. The woman also contacted state agencies; the Licensing and Protection Division of the Vermont Agency of Human Services found that the hospital had failed to meet three key standards for medical records privacy and security. The woman also contacted the FBI, her local legislators, and the Bennington Police Department.

After months of reviews and investigations, in November 2012 the violator plead guilty to four misdemeanor counts of unauthorized access of computer records. She was given a suspended sentence, fined $2,000, and made to perform 160 hours of community service. She continued to work in a hospital – although not the one where she had spied on others’ records. The hospital where the breaches occurred faced no reported sanction; it was only told it had to take corrective action so patients’ medical information was better protected.

The ACLU is not opposed to the digitization of patient medical records and the building of patient record databases. We understand access to a patient’s medical records can improve medical care, avoid duplication of services, and save money. But adequate safeguards protecting privacy must be in place. And we do not believe Vermont’s safeguards are adequate for the kind of system being built.

We are urging the state not to approve a “global opt-in” system before four things are done:

• Patients must have a right to request and receive an audit at least once a year showing who has accessed their medical records.
• Law enforcement must be prohibited access to medical records without a warrant.
• Stiff civil and criminal statutory penalties must be put in place that can be imposed on any person or institution accessing a patient’s records without authorization or need to do so.
• A private right of action for patients to sue for damages for unauthorized access to records must be created.
• 
  

The Green Mountain Care Board is expected to take up the proposal to change the patient consent policy on Thursday, Feb. 13, at 1 p.m.

• Before then, comments on the proposal can be submitted by 9 a.m. on Feb. 3 to the office of the Secretary of Administration, who will make a recommendation to the Green Mountain Care Board on whether the proposal should be approved, modified, or rejected.
• After the Green Mountain Care Board’s Feb. 13 hearing, comments will also be accepted by the board, which is expected to make its decision by Feb. 27. Information on submitting comments should be available on the board’s Web site following the Feb. 13 hearing; the deadline for submitting comments will likely be very tight.

Background materials:

• Proposal from Vermont Information Technology Leaders (VITL) to change the Vermont Health Information Exchange patient consent policy.
• Current patient consent policy, with proposed changes noted.
• Comments by ACLU-VT on the proposed changes.
• Read the Rutland Herald story on the sentencing of Kathy Tatro in Superior Court in Bennington in November 2012 for unauthorized access of a patient’s medical records.

Pity poor T. Michael Twomey, high-ranking executive at Entergy Nuclear, forced to make a dreary midwinter trudge from sunny Louisiana to snowy Montpelier and face questioning from the flannel-and-fleece-clad rubes collectively known as the Vermont Public Service Board. As reported by Susan Smallheer of the (unfortunately paywalled) Mitchell Family Organ/South, he was met by a show of impertinence:

“You’re asking us to trust you again,” said outgoing PSB member David Coen. “Why should we?”

We’ll get to Twomey’s response in a moment, but let us first assess the emotional and psychological repercussions of such harsh treatment.

Twomey said he had been personally insulted by the Department of Public Service’s filing in October 2014 attacking Entergy’s credibility and business track record in the state. But even with those insults, he said, he sat down with “those people,” he said, pointing across the room in the direction of the state’s Boston law firm, and negotiated an agreement.

Oooh, “personally insulted.” “Those people.” I do hope the PSB will deliver an apology forthwith, so as to ease the pain of Mr. Twomey’s butthurt. (“Tucks” would help, too.) Cue the tiny violins, and let us have a soothing serenade. Because it’s not as if Twomey and Entergy ever meant to do us any harm.

Twomey… said the company had “made mistakes along the way,” but the company “has been a good partner” to the state in its 11 years of ownership of Vermont Yankee.

“Mistakes.” (Cough.) “Mistakes,” you say. Let’s take a look at just a few of those “mistakes,” in hopes of gaining insight into the PSB’s lack of faith in Our Corporate Partner. In no particular order…  

— Entergy’s consistent failure to adequately build a decommissioning fund, with the result that we’ll be waiting as long as 60 years for the process to complete.

— The attempted spinoff of VY to an undercapitalized shell corporation that would have assumed legal liability for plant operation and shutdown, without the resources to carry out either task.

— Those nonexistent underground pipes that turned out to, well, exist, and in fact, contained radioactive water.

— The persistent and mysterious leaks of radioactive tritium into nearby groundwater and the Connecticut River.

— Above all else, VY’s 30-year history of inadequate maintenance and ensuing trouble. This is usually framed in terms of recent incidents, but way back in the 1980s its track record was already poor enough that Vermont cartoonist Tim Newcomb started depicting the reactor as a bruised, bloodied and bandaged reactor tower.

— Then there are the notorious recent incidents, including a 2004 fire and the 2007 collapse of a cooling tower.

As The Atlantic summed it up in 2011:

…strings of jarring failures are what many… have come to expect from Yankee.

If that’s what Mr. Twomey thinks of as a “good partner,” I’m glad I’m not married to the guy.

And in case you doubt the goodwill of Our Partner, Twomey also delivered something of a threat to the PSB, which is considering an agreement between the state and Entergy over the closure of Vermont Yankee. An agreement widely panned as inadequate, and weakly defended by state officials as the best they could do under the circumstances. (“The circumstances” being defined as “the deck is stacked in favor of Entergy.”)

Entergy has said it needs an answer from the board by the end of March, after that it will withdraw its offer. Twomey said any significant or “material” changes to the agreement would also nix the deal.

“Good partner,” my ass.  

Washington’s perennial White Knight and my own favorite DC delegate, Senator Bernie Sanders, appears poised to do it again.

Asserting the privilege enjoyed by those rare individuals who can claim some independence in the captive environment of  Capitol Hill, the Senator may be ready to take on the Price Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

For half a century, this stealth cost-shift mechanism has allowed the nuclear industry to enjoy an unfair advantage in the market for alternative energy over solar, wind, geo-thermal and anything else that might come down the pike.

Drafted in the infancy of atomic energy initiatives to give that fledgling U.S. industry a unique leg-up over conventional energy sources, Price-Anderson continues to artificially prop-up  the nuclear balance sheet.  

While lending nuclear a competitive edge, Price Anerson disadvantages truly clean energy alternatives that have been developing in the interim.

Under the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which Congress first passed in 1957 and has since renewed several times, the liability of nuclear power plant operators in the event of a disaster is limited.

As provided for under Price Anderson, the U.S. nuclear industry collectively pays into an “insurance account” which is available to fund the collateral costs of a nuclear emergency.  The industry’s maximum liability is capped at the amount in the fund.  The current value of that fund is estimated at $12-billion dollars.

To put that figure into perspective, the cost of the single disaster at Fukushima has been estimated at $80-billion dollars.

And, who gets to take up the slack?  Why the American taxpayers, of course!

…documents released under the Freedom of Information Act in recent years show that the federal government has not decided on a plan for how the actual cleanup of the contaminated area surrounding a compromised nuclear facility would be paid for.

In 2009, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials informed their counterparts at the Homeland Security Department and the Environmental Protection Agency that the Price Anderson money likely would not be available to pay for offsite cleanup.

Hello!

Holding what amounts to a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, the American nuclear industry has enjoyed the double advantage over other energy industries of paying a significantly reduced premium for insurance and being able to make the public claim that nuclear energy was “cheap.”

When Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer recently criticized the NRC’s slow uptake of lessons from Fukushima, Senator James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma sniffed

“that perhaps we are trying to regulate the nuclear energy industry out business, just like we’re trying to regulate the fossil fuels business out of business.”

To which Senator Sanders responded by offering that perhaps Senator Inhofe might like to join him in introducing legislation to repeal Price-Anderson in order to

“get government out of the nuclear industry.”

Now that the proverbial gauntlet has been thrown down, I hope we’ll see Bernie follow through.

I guess both the major league and minor league football seasons are over now, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to think about.

 I just heard on Friday that for over ten years some college players have been working to establish a union for college football players. It's called the National College Players Association. It was started in 2001 by a group of UCLA football players and has expanded since then. According to their web page they have had some notable victories, including:

 A $10 million fund to assist former athletes who wish to complete their undergraduate degree or attend a graduate program.

There was more of a discussion of this on NPR's Tell Me More on Friday, and you can follow the link to hear more. 

Obviously the ultimate goal of any union is to gain the ability to negotiate on wages, hours, and working conditions for the members of the union. This undoubtedly seems a long way off, maybe even inconceivable, for the underpaid workers the NCAA refers to, without a hint of awareness of the irony, as “student-athletes”.

 On the other hand, there was a time when the same would be said of unionization of graduate student teaching assistants at U.S. universities, and that has changed. I well remember the struggle of graduate students to unionize at the University of Michigan when I was there at law school, and the arguments the university made then were the same as what the NCAA would undoubtedly make against unions for football players.

Nevertheless, while the argument that teaching assistants are primarily students, there to learn and not to provide a valuable service to the university found support from the NLRB in 2004 (at least at private schools), the same argument is laughable when it comes to football or basketball players. They're not there to learn, their academic progress is irrelevant to their real jobs of playing football or basketball, and the universities make millions of dollars off their efforts. 

I don't really believe in paying college athletes, mainly because I don't think big-time college athletics should exist at all. Nevertheless, someone is making money off these workers' labor, and it isn't the workers.

Maybe it's time for that to change. 

One of the odd stories in the lead-up to the Super Bowl, which I understand is tomorrow, is the news about Scarlett Johansson.

There are always stories about the commercials that are going to be on the Super Bowl, or that were on the Super Bowl in the past, or that didn't make it past the censors for the Super Bowl.

It turns out that Ms. Johansson's commercial made headlines for more than being in two of the mentioned categories. It's a commercial for Sodastream, the kitchen appliance that is going to save you big bucks that you would otherwise be spending on soda at the store, like Coke or Pepsi.

Oops–that's how they didn't make it past the censors. Since Coke and Pepsi are big advertisers, no fair mentioning the competition, so it's back to the drawing board for Sodastream.

The big story, though, is the conflict between Ms. Johansson's decision to rake in the bucks–I haven't been able to find out exactly how many–and her role as a spokesperson for Oxfam, one of the leading human rights and antipoverty organizations worldwide. 

You see, Sodastream makes its home soda machines in a settlement in the occupied territories in Palestine, so her support of Sodastream puts her in direct conflict with Oxfam, because “Oxfam is opposed to all trade from Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law.“

The story percolated for a few days, with human rights activists criticizing Ms. Johansson, but Oxfam not dropping her as a spokesperson. Eventually, though, she resigned her position with Oxfam, who accepted the resignation.

 This is the only way it could have ended, obviously. Ms. Johansson couched her endorsement of Sodastream in the self-serving language Sodastream itself uses, the humanitarian mission of providing employment for Palestinians, never mentioning the sizable checks that are obviously flowing her way. She sure doesn't come out of this looking good.

 I haven't seen the comparison made, but the parallel that strikes me about this is South Africa and the Sullivan Principles. Leon Sullivan was a Baptist minister from Philadelphia on the board of General Motors, and when anti-apartheid activitists were agitating for divestment of American companies from South Africa Sullivan came up with the Sullivan Principles, a set of standards designed to justify American corporations making big bucks off apartheid.

In the case of the Sullivan Principles, as in the case of Sodastream, humanitarian reasons were trotted out to justify corporate policies: we're a positive force for change, the people need the jobs, blah, blah, blah.

Never mind that the activists on the ground supported divestment as the only effective tactic against apartheid, either in South Africa or Palestine.  Ms. Johansson's “argument cuts no ice with Palestinian groups, who say SodaStream pays Palestinians less than Israelis, or with Oxfam, which says that trading with Israeli companies operating in West Bank settlements legitimates the occupation regardless of how they treat their workers.”

 Don't expect this to have any impact on Ms. Johansson's career, but at least we can hope that it creates some greater visibility to the settlement issue in the wider world.

Brad Ferland has been, and I assume still is, a paid lobbyist for Vermont Yankee; so it surprised me to find his opinion piece occupying the paper’s editorial position in the Weekend Messenger.

Be that as it may, Mr. Ferland raises the question of why more members of the public did not show up for the January 14 Public Service Board Hearing on Vermont Yankee.   Mr. Ferland seems to think that the forty citizens who did testify represents a negligible number; but be that as it may, I know why I did not, so I can hazard a guess why others did not as well.

The hearing was held on a Tuesday at 7:00 PM.    Leave aside the fact that it was a work night for most of us, and the driving conditions were less than ideal, many people had other meetings and obligations on the night in question. That is why the PSB collects statements through a link on their website, from people who are unable to be physically present.

Mr. Ferland fails to mention that one of the key issues under consideration by the PSB, is the fact that Vermont Yankee prefers to save itself some money by not using the facility’s cooling towers in order to bring its water discharges to a temperature that will not harm aquatic life in the Connecticut River.   Continued operation by VY under these circumstance, even for a year, has an impact on our already fragile river resources.

The settlement that Mr. Ferland refers to so glowingly, may not be all that it’s cracked-up to be.  Much of the supposed “benefit” to Vermont comes from a chunk of cash that is supposed to be used to promote economic development.  “Economic development” funds often find their way into already well-lined pockets, and seldom seem to reach the folks who are most in need of help.

When this veil is stripped away, Vermont really does come out on the distinctly losing side of the bargain.  And the potential for that loss grows even greater the longer that Entergy postpones decommissioning of Vermont Yankee; because the parent company is not as robust as one might hope for an entity that must be trusted decades ahead of time to finish the job properly in our childrens’ lifetime.

Entergy’s quality and safety control reputation has suffered numerous blows over the past couple of years, but none more spectacular than when they blacked-out last year’s Super Bowl Game!

And we are counting on these folks to keep a lid on the pressure cooker at VY far into the distant future?  If I were a betting woman, I would put my money on Vermont Yankee slipping out from under that obligation with some kind of sleazy financial sidestep.  

Talk about allowing Entergy time to grow the decommissioning fund makes me laugh.  They’ve had forty years of extremely profitable operation in which to cultivate that fund.  All that remains fairly certain is that the taxpayers of Vermont will, inevitably, be stuck with much of the bill for cleaning-up what Entergy leaves behind.

“Economic development” funds?  Chump change.

Usually, reductio ad absurdum is something you do to another person’s line of argument. It’s very unusual to reductio one’s own argument ad absurdum, but Campaign for Vermont spokesflack Shaun Shouldice managed the trick in a letter sent this week to House Speaker Shap Smith.

The letter formally accused State Representative Mike McCarthy of violating House rules by casting a vote on H. 702, the bill to expand the state’s net metering program. McCarthy is an employee of SunCommon, the VPIRG spinoff that facilitates the adoption of solar power by homeowners. Shouldice argues that since the net metering bill “will be beneficial to SunCommon,” and that McCarthy “has a direct interest in the passage of H.702.” She then asks Smith to “discuss this violation… with Representative McCarthy and take whatever action is necessary.”



The letter also ties McCarthy’s vote to CFV’s top legislative priority, ethics reform.

Okay, a couple of problems here.

First, H. 702 passed by a margin of 136 to 8. Yeah, if McCarthy had recused himself, that bill would’ve been in deep trouble, f’sho.

Second, aside from retirees, every single person in the Legislature has a day job. And it didn’t take me 30 seconds to come up with other examples of “direct interest” in pieces of legislation. Let’s take former Senator, now Lieutenant Governor Phil Scott, who runs a road-construction company. In his years in the Senate, did he ever vote on transportation bills? How about Bill Doyle, who teaches part-time at Johnson State College? Does he vote on education funding bills?

How about realtor/Rep. Don Turner, or realtor/Sen. Ann Cummings? Do they recuse themselves on land-use and property-tax measures? After all, the professional realtors association is publicly lobbying for lower property taxes; sounds like a real conflict of interest there.  

To put it more broadly:

“We’ve got a citizen legislature,” says McCarthy, who went to work for SunCommon in July 2013. “Farmers vote on farm bills. Teachers vote on education bills. We have a doctor who votes on health care bills.”

The latter would be Democrat George Till, who not only votes on health care bills, but also serves on the House Health Care Committee. The unmitigated gall of that man!

And how about Peter “The Slummin’ Solon” Galbraith, who made his fortune in fossil fuels and now sits on the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, where he is furiously active in efforts to slow the growth of renewable energy? Hmmmmm?

I could go on. And on. But you get the point.

Which makes me wonder why Shouldice and CFV chose Mike McCarthy and net metering as the hill they would die on — or, at least, make fools of themselves on. If she was hoping to make a strong case to Democratic leaders and gain momentum on CFV’s ethics crusade, this certainly wasn’t the way to do it.

Worst case, the letter will offend Smith and other lawmakers; best case, they’ll laugh it off. And assign a lot less credibility to CFV’s future endeavors.